bsclifton
Joined 12 years ago
Karma
193
Submissions
79
Member since
Dec 31
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/bsclifton; my proof: https://keybase.io/bsclifton/sigs/OmJVa2MsNDRcO6iho3ZZmtlodGqssiiBzHXCA8UTpj8 ]
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 10 months ago
Already shared, but that (what you linked to) was a proposal and no deliverable was ever publicly released. A simple prototype was made and tested by a limited number of employees - instead of showing an ad, it would show a picture of a mustachioed man as a placeholder. That silly picture would be replaced with real code if the idea panned out. It didn't. The idea and the code was canned before I joined Brave and I've been here for almost 10 years (I joined August 2016).
Disclaimer in case it's not obvious: I am a Brave employee
Comment · 2 years ago
Something I would like to mention, as a dev on Brave, is that patches are considered a last resort. If there are patches, we try to keep them lightweight - like patch to have Chromium create the Brave version of the object (something we can restrict to one line).
What you'll notice more often is a folder we have called `chromium_src`. This directory mirrors the directory structure for Chromium under `src` and the build system will look for matches. If there's a file with the same name under `chromium_src`, it'll prefer that one. That file then does what it needs to differently and then includes the original file.
This approach helps keep things much more lightweight - but it has challenges too. If code fails to apply (file that `chromium_src` is matching gets renamed, etc) it can be hard to detect. This is where you'd want to have a test to catch that.
Another person shared - but here's a link to our patching documentation: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Patching-Chromiu...
You'll notice the actual patching itself is introduced with the caveat:
> When other options are exhausted, you can patch the code directlyComment · 3 years ago
Some more context here:
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/8342
You can leave a comment if it's something you'd like to see as an option
Comment · 3 years ago
I'm #6 on that "wontfix" board and it's OK w/ me :) Most of those are from when I migrated our issues from one repo to another.
We (Brave Software) do all of our company work on GitHub and have over 10k issues in our main repo. Lots of us falling under `Ideas Person` for opening issues tracking bugs/feature requests/etc. No shame in working in the public
Comment · 5 years ago
If a user has Brave Rewards and ads enabled and gets an ad grant at the end of the month, SafetyNet is one measure used to help filter out fraudsters. The absence of it shouldn't cause a crash though
Comment · 5 years ago
Likely due to SafetyNet API not being supported on that platform. I think this is captured with https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15344
Comment · 5 years ago
This is a bit of a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29191244 - but article confirms (via Microsoft's release notes) that they consider it a bug that applications which are NOT Edge were able to set this.
> We fixed an issue where OS functionality could be improperly redirected when microsoft-edge: links are invoked.
There are also some paid options which show - when you try to change the handler for `microsoft-edge:` (you can't pick an app; but you can pick Microsoft Store). `Search Bar Connector` for 1.69 and `Search Deflector` for $1.69
Guessing these are broke too. If it really is a "bug", why did Microsoft approve those applications?
Comment · 5 years ago
It's something you need to manually configure. We would like to have an option for Windows folks that want to enable - but it would always be off by default (opt-in). It's understood that enabling this is going against the OS defined behavior
Worth noting that in order to offer a toggle, we'd need to get around the default protection (same as Firefox w/ setting default browser). People can only currently use this by going to the `Defaults` handler in Windows and replacing Edge themselves
Comment · 5 years ago
There is an alternative option 2 available- you can subscribe to Brave Premium for a cost (shows as $7 USD/month). Just wanted to share as I hadn't seen it mentioned here
For the no-cost option, enabling Brave Rewards helps Brave to cover the costs of video infrastructure
Comment · 5 years ago
Have you given it a try? The crypto-currency parts are optional (you have to actually enable them). Brave has got a solid adblocker and privacy features out of the box
Comment · 5 years ago
Thanks for the report! :) Fix coming
Comment · 5 years ago
(Brave employee here)
We actually have a fair chunk of deviations that we maintain (link already shared by Brendan, but here it is again)
https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...
We have a pretty comprehensive patching system which you can read more about here: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Patching-Chromiu...
There is a small team of folks here constantly working on rebasing the next Chromium version on Brave. They fight these deviations and try to minimize the patching as much as possible- so future versions are easier and easier. We even have some clever UI patching for the Polymer pages
There definitely have been challenges - for example, with Chromium 69, the network delegates were moved over to NetworkService which broke our shields code. But I'm really proud of the work done to minimize things. For a long time, the team rebasing Chromium was just one person... and we've always delivered Chromium upgrades and updates to Brave users within 24-48 hours of Google's stable channel
Comment · 5 years ago
The affiliate autocomplete problem was acknowledged as a mistake and removed. More info at https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/